Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tuscany.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of ant.elder@gmail.com designates
 209.85.220.207 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        b=faea69u9f/yYOkI9eNcz/aBMFExcHCuJHhU83rPnbXQVgfQIHExICdUzyJI7SQqQSt
         CstZdka0Tif4pybJf5uaGwGbr34k6Csizy99RnTji9qxo7r8CZkNfYKSv9i95vYX9vOv
         FMcPpjUkpeN2aqmOe/LoKkuyKd856olk7ZLAw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: ant.elder@gmail.com
Reply-To: antelder@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <5a75db780909301311k28365574ue1ed87bd7dc6fea@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5a75db780909222031o213d3a93j9b7df9a42d606c2f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c0c051b50909230448x2caf08a8jfa036976ae011321@mail.gmail.com>
	 <5a75db780909230840v156d3316qfc3d1bfafde3b9dc@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c0c051b50909231023p1568d11fs918b8803d40eed86@mail.gmail.com>
	 <98410DEB2D2E428A9B2651F22963E9AE@rfengt61p>
	 <5a75db780909231446nf4bd33ere4a3fa49ac9239c2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4ABDACD8.6060304@apache.org>
	 <5a75db780909261044v787e0bm48fab41d799da5a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <71e1b5740909292250s344d51e6lbdda81c2d25f11bf@mail.gmail.com>
	 <5a75db780909301311k28365574ue1ed87bd7dc6fea@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 07:26:44 +0100
Message-ID: <71e1b5740909302326m1048013buc3aeeb4f404ccbfd@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Simplifying our current SVN Structure
From: ant elder <antelder@apache.org>
To: dev@tuscany.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1975@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I agree with some of the previous comments about all the contrib
>> folders being confusing. Could we have just a single contrib folder or
>> move it all to the sandbox folder?
>>
>
> A single contrib folder would make things more hard to find, how would
> you differentiate from 1.x to 2.x in teh sca case ? How about other
> projects like DAS, SDO, etc Also, moving it to sandbox will just make
> it hard to find to anyone other then the very active community
> members... adding them together with the active code stream would
> probably increase the possibility that these contrib projects can come
> to live again at some point.
>

We've been mainly using the contrib folders for a way of deleting
things without actually deleting. I don't think there are any DAS or
SDO or CPP things being slowly developed in any contrib folders not
trunk, or even much for SCA - the loadbalancing and workpool demos -
most things that are being developed out of trunk are already done in
the sandbox - eg the travel sample, store-secure etc. Guess we could
have separate sandboxes or contrib folders just in case for sdo, das,
cpp etc, but seems simpler to me to just have the one high level
sandbox area like we do now.

   ...ant